<p>while wha #65 posts is good advice overall I will quibble with that in its application to every student.</p>
<p>For one thing theres simply life and logistics. We go to NY a lot cause of family. So fairly early in the process we visited Columbia. Should we have passed up the chance to do that until she had her match list in place? </p>
<p>Second, there are a lot of kids for whom the reaches are NOT HYPMS which are reaches for everybody. The reaches my DD applied to were Columbia/List, WUSTL, and Swarthmore. Reaches we thought about included JHU, UChicago, Cornell, Barnard and UVA. Schools which are not quite as reachy for everyone, which therefore required some thought to determine how reachy they actually were. </p>
<p>And some kids just arent easy to figure out early in the process. My kid was having major issues with her GPA in HS early freshman year, and late sophomore year - she really got things together Junior year, but then fell a little back to earth first semester senior year. Similar surprises up and down in other admissions relevant thing. We simply didnt know till it was time for the apps deadlines where she fit (and even then we really didnt - as I have mentioned before, figuring out the prospects place for a kid who is bottom quartile at a tippy top HS with great SATs and with ADHD is challenging, cause there simply arent that many of them, and different colleges look at them differently. </p>
<p>We made sure (well I insisted) that she have several matches, and at least one safety at all the later stages of the process, but to do it in sequence - first a safety, then matches, then reaches - was really a luxury we did not have.</p>
<p>slitheytove, we/he are still working on selecting a couple safeties. Finances are not a consideration, we can pay the full freight. Names like Rutgers, Penn State, UCSB fall into that safety category.</p>
<p>pleaseadvise, there’s a lot to love about UCSB. Does your son love it? Looks like he’d like big, decent academic reputation, not particularly urban and students who like to have some fun. Would U of Oregon or U Ariz be possibilities? I also wonder about (non-safeties) U Miami and Tulane.</p>
<p>I’ve been racking my brain and googling away unsuccessfully looking for the source of a quote that was something like this: “Above ACT scores of 28, there is no correlation between test scores and future achievement or success”. (If my own test scores were higher, I’d probably remember the exact quote and source, heh.)</p>
<p>I’m glad that we live in a small midwestern town that values academic success, but doesn’t seem to make a fetish of getting into only the top most ultra selective schools. The last couple of years, my daughter’s high school has had a few grads accepted into Harvard, Stanford, Caltech, Northwestern, the USC film school and the service academies. As far as I can tell, everyone is happy and proud for them, but not devastated that their own children got into lower status schools. In fact, I think few students apply to more than a few schools, probably fewer still apply to those super reach schools. The angst about getting into the Ivies exhibited on this site and on the NYT’s “The Choice” blog are a non factor in my Lake Woebeggonish town. Here all the children are above average, but there are few tiger moms and dads to contend with.</p>
<p>When googling unsuccessfully for the quote about test scores and success, I did find this David Brooks column that is chock full of wisdom:</p>
<p>I agree. Even perfect stats alone are not enough to get the majority of candidates into HYPSM alone and may not be enough for the next top 20. My son was waitlisted at Rice with a 36 ACT/1 in 400 class rank, not long after being admitted early-write to Williams and Amherst.</p>
<p>Based on our experience, I can conclude that a student today:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Shouldn’t fall too in love with a particular school, but rather exam those individual aspects of the school that make it appealing and then seek out others with similar characteristics.</p></li>
<li><p>Needs to build a laddered scale of options, with acceptance rates from perhaps 7%-30% or higher plus a safety school that has real appeal.</p></li>
<li><p>Needs to go beyond the pure classroom experience to make an impression on jaded application readers. That could mean winning statewide or national academic/talent awards or it could mean identifying an unmet community need and finding a way to fill that need. ECs can help to overcome somewhat lessor academic stats if they are distinctive and effectively implemented.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“Not as reachy as HYPSM” is a distinction without a difference when you’re talking about the schools that you’ve listed above (with the possible exception of UVA for an in-stater, which I believe you are). I see no reason not to think of those schools just as much as reaches / lucky strike extras. Anyway, what school with an acceptance rate < 35% isn’t a reach for pretty much everybody applying?</p>
<p>Stressing over college is what you make of it, and ED is not for everyone. I know kids who were deferred or denied ED I, re-denied ED II at another school and spent the rest of their senior year far more stressed than my D. I also know kids who got into their ED school and then stressed over the “what ifs” regret.</p>
<p>D didn’t do any EDs because she didn’t have a top choice. She applied to a bunch of “match” schools, all of which she would have been happy at, plus she was guaranteed a UC, which also would have been acceptable. Not having the “dream school” and not being obsessed with going to the highest ranked school possible meant that the anxiety level at our house over college admissions was totally manageable. In the end, D had several fine choices. </p>
<p>While I can understand needing the uncertainty around where you will be next year over with ASAP, IMO, having a little patience and being able to pick from among several choices is definitely worth the wait. Closure is good, but options are good too.</p>
<p>"“Not as reachy as HYPSM” is a distinction without a difference when you’re talking about the schools that you’ve listed above (with the possible exception of UVA for an in-stater, which I believe you are). I see no reason not to think of those schools just as much as reaches / lucky strike extras. Anyway, what school with an acceptance rate < 35% isn’t a reach for pretty much everybody applying? "</p>
<p>i respectfully disagree with your first statement. We know one youngster, who is a senior at TJ this year, and while I do not know her GPA or number of APs, she is a very solid high achieving TJ student - like my daughter in IQ, but without my DD’s ADHD, etc. Of HYPMS, she was accepted at Princeton and rejected at yale, and I think Harvard (not sure if she applied) but was accepted at a couple of other ivies, Vanderbilt, and I think one other top 25 U. (tufts was her safety) IE if you had said that for her HYPMS were reaches, and the other ivies and other top 25 Us were matches, or high matches, or what you will, you would have forecast her admissions pretty darned well. There are other kids at TJ (and I am sure elsewhere) like that. </p>
<p>under 35%? That includes Lehigh (which I considered a match for DD, and yes, she got in) W&M (which I also considered a match for DD, she did not apply, but I know enough about others from TJ who did get in to be fairly sure she would have) Colgate, Bucknell, etc, etc.
[Top</a> 100 - Lowest Acceptance Rates | Rankings | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate/page+3]Top”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate/page+3)
For the most part most schools in the 25% to 35% acceptance rate range ARE matches for a considerable number of students. Univ of Chicago, which has an acceptance rate of 27% is an oft noted EXCEPTION, due to its unusual nature and self selecting applicant pool. </p>
<p>Note, I am talking MATCHES, not safeties. To me a match means, you apply to a bunch of them, you should get into roughly half - you are not certain to get into any given one (THAT would be a safety). reaches are ones where if you are rejected by all of them, you arent shocked.</p>
<p>My kid got a 1770 first time he took the SAT! He retook it and got a 19??(seriously don’t remember). He got into MIT (and a couple of Ivys (not HYP-didn’t apply)). He is not a URM, nor does he have any other “hooks” that many on CC is so concerned about. He didn’t have a high paid private counselor nor did he have anyone read his essays (not a smart move as English is NOT his strong point). I read the app’s after they were submitted–he had a serious grammatical error in every essay! The thing that stood out in them was the life experiences beyond the classroom that he had to bring to the table (and they weren’t things we had to shell out big $'s for him to do).</p>
<p>He spent high school following his passions (as did his good friend who also had a sub-2100 SAT and who was admitted to both MIT AND Stanford–also did not apply HYP) and is a very interesting kid who does very interesting things (things he would never have time for if he spent as much time studying and preparing for exams and taking prep classes as so many other kids seem to do). Yes, he has a high GPA, class rank, several varsity letters and plenty of high AP scores, so he’s no slouch. The senior category he won for the yearbook was, “It’s 12:00 AM and I haven’t started my homework.”</p>
<p>As a side note–I have never seen the “highest SAT scorer” at my high school (teacher here) ever get into an Ivy! I know this is clearly anecdotal but “those” kids always seem to be so “boring” compared to those right below them. </p>
<p>BTW–If S chose to go to a non-top 20 university I wouldn’t lose a nights sleep. He’s smart, polite, can carry on a conversation and able to see opportunity when it exists. The whole top 20 thing on CC can be a bit much. I worry about people who put so much importance on the “name” of the school their child attends instead of a school that their child will blossom at.</p>
<p>"My kid got a 1770 first time he took the SAT! He retook it and got a 19??(seriously don’t remember). He got into MIT (and a couple of Ivys (not HYP-didn’t apply)). He is not a URM, nor does he have any other “hooks” that many on CC is so concerned about. . . . Yes, he has a high GPA, class rank, several varsity letters and plenty of high AP scores, so he’s no slouch. The senior category he won for the yearbook was, “It’s 12:00 AM and I haven’t started my homework.”</p>
<p>That’s not entirely inconsist w/ OP’s point. If S is at MIT and he’s a math kid, a 1980+ SAT score (something along the lines of 770M, 610CR, 610W or 770M/650CR at a school that doesn’t count W) would be fine - - particularly if supported by high AP scores (especially in math/sci) and on top of varsity sports. And FWIW, almost all of my 12:0AM-and-I-haven’t-started-my-homework friends were math whiz kids - - in college they would never attend class, show up only for the final and ace it.</p>
<p>This kind of thinking drives me up a wall. </p>
<p>Why do so many parents draw a line and say in effect “MY kids are the perfect balance between “book smarts” and other things”–which is exactly what ACCecil is saying–and anyone who has better grades or better test scores is an egghead or a geek or a nerd?</p>
<p>It’s an attitude that permeates too much of American society. The fact that someone who is teaching community college has that attitude is appalling. </p>
<p>Now, I’d be the FIRST to admit that it’s not all about “book smarts.” Social skills and empathy are also important. But it is a complete fallacy to think that having “book smarts” is a trade off with having good social skills. It is possible to have both. There are plenty of people who do. </p>
<p>If parents accept less from their children as students than their children are capable of and send the message that “that’s okay, having a cute girlfriend and playing football is more important,” they aren’t doing their kids any favors. Of course, if they send their kids the message that the only thing that matters in life is academic success, they aren’t doing their kids any favors either. </p>
<p>I shouldn’t assume that anyone who plays football and has a girlfriend in high school is doomed to turn out like Rabbit Angstrom . ACC shouldn’t assume that anyone who has a 4.0 and a 2400 SAT is a geek or a nerd.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say “don’t bother.” But I would say “have realistic expectations.” D2 had better than a 2200 with a 4.0, proven leadership, 4-years of Varsity sports and school/professonal theater experience, community service and an amazing letter of recommendation from her counselor. She was rejected from MIT, Princeton and Stanford. She does have acceptances from Duke, WashU and West Point. Her SATIIs could have been stronger. I liked her essay, but in hindsight, maybe she should have gone a different direction with it. Not going to spend much time second guessing anything she did. She has good choices. Imagine some kids with lower stats got in to schools she didn’t, and good for them! Confident she’s going to land right where she should be.</p>
<p>“MY kids are the perfect balance between “book smarts” and other things”–which is exactly what ACCecil is saying–and anyone who has better grades or better test scores is an egghead or a geek or a nerd?"</p>
<p>I dunno. My kid is a nerd. I love her. I wouldnt trade her for a “vanilla gifted but with better social skills” kid in a million years, even if the optimal IQ to maximize income is somewhere below hers.</p>
I actually do not agree with this … for students with uber stats I believe thinking about which schools they are interested in for many would be easier if they start with reaches. If one of my kids said they wanted to apply to all 8 IVYies I’d push back and ask them why … a school filled with high performing students where everyong will be my peer … fair enough desire and it takes the student right to reaches. But then the discussion of large/small … urban/rural … core/no requirements … which will cut the list. Then whatever attributes the reaches have move on to a discussion of what schools have similar attributes but are slightly less selective. For me it seems most top students are going have an easier time differentiating the differences between MIT, Harvard, Penn, and Duke … then Lehigh, Univeristy of Rochester, Bucknell … not because of snobbery about schools but because in genereal the top schools are better known. If a student ends up with a balanced list I am not understanding how pushing a student to start where they know less would be a better process than starting where they know more.</p>
<p>That’s too bad. All it means is that an excellent college has joined the rat race, with no possible benefit to its always high academic standards. All they get is more applications from kids who would rather be at Harvard, and a more difficult task in selecting the best-fit kids for their school. </p>
<p>It was nice that my d. had the opportunity to apply at a time when she could be assured that the ad com would have the time and ability to take a serious look at her application. When the numbers of apps go up, the admissions staff is forced to focus more on test scores, simply because they need a way to weed out a significant chunk of applications to deal with the volume. It does not do a service for the school and it does not do a service for the applicants. Of course, Chicago will move up a notch or so in next year’s US News rankings… and the cycle will continue.</p>
<p>I agree very much with your last post. But I wonder what you would have colleges do? Like any institution they offer a brand and they naturally want that brand to be sought after and highly prized. Thus the awful cycle you so eloquently describe.</p>
<p>There are worse methods than test scores for culling through the masses of applicants. For all the angst over it favoring the wealthy, I believe most objective studies have found that the needle on scores doesn’t move much from expensive prep classes. Sure, it’s correlated with SES but then – at least to some degree – so is IQ and motivation.</p>
<p>And for some highly selective schools low SES is actually a hook.</p>
<p>I don’t like the system. My second kid will have to join the fray of admissions next year.</p>
<p>I think “outstanding” is a little too strong of a word for what my daughter had to offer. “Different” or “interesting” or “unusual” might make more sense. For me, the word “outstanding” signifies some great achievement – and my d. certainly didn’t have that.</p>
<p>I raise this because I think words like “outstanding” can be very daunting to parents and students alike. It tends to focus on things like whether they have won awards or recognition, or are the best at something-- and to minimize the value of their own more modest interests and achievements. It also can lead students to fear trying something new or different out of fear that they won’t be good enough at whatever they are trying for it to matter. </p>
<p>The ad coms aren’t necessarily looking for “amazing”-- they are looking for a combination of factors that indicate that the student will be a valuable addition to their academic community. Given the high volume of applications, it helps to have a profile that is different enough to be memorable – in that respect it probably helped my daughter to be the kid who went to Russia as opposed to being Student Body President, even though at a large high school it is probably a lot harder to get elected student body president than it is to sign up for an overseas trip to the country of one’s choice. </p>
<p>But the point is not for student to go out and try to do something amazing in order to impress the colleges. The point is for the kid to develop and pursue their own interests and talents, and then when it comes time to thinking about colleges, take stock and ask themselves what they have that sets them apart from the pack. So maybe that hypothetical student body president needs to realize that, because her elective title is relatively common among elite school applicants, she needs to focus her college application around something else, perhaps as simple as focusing on something that she managed to accomplish in her role, or perhaps focusing on something that would seem trivial if it were the only thing a kid has to offer, but is intriguing when coming from the kid with a list of impressive, but typical, high school leadership roles.</p>
Does your son love it? Looks like he’d like big, decent academic reputation, not particularly urban and students who like to have some fun. Would U of Oregon or U Ariz be possibilities? I also wonder about (non-safeties) U Miami and Tulane.</p>